obligation toward their child or toward their ex-husband.^28 By contrast, wid-
ows were viewed as obligated to their deceased husbands; in that capacity they
had to nurse their children until they reached the age of twenty-four months
and were not allowed to remarry earlier. As we shall see, these laws were cen-
tral to medieval discussions.
Cases concerning the remarriage of nursing widows and divorcées are dis-
cussed with great frequency throughout ancient and medieval times. The con-
cern for the welfare of children and women in these situations is a central fac-
tor in these discussions. The crucial question was how to treat marriages
contracted during the period of nursing. The standard opinion was that these
couples must be divorced.^29 While most discussions distinguished between
widows and divorcées, some opinions equated both situations and ruled that
divorcées, like widows, could not remarry during the twenty-four months of
nursing.^30 As we will see, this opinion was very influential during the Middle
Ages in Ashkenaz.
An additional problem concerned the law if a woman (divorced or married)
refused to nurse her child. This case is of great importance, since it demon-
strates the awareness that, even if breast-feeding was considered the natural
role of mothers, not all women wanted to nurse their children. In such cases,
the determining factor was whether the baby had already nursed from his/her
mother and recognized her. In cases in which the baby recognized the
mother, she was obliged to continue nursing and was not allowed to hire a wet
nurse. The reason for this ruling was the fear for the infant’s life if the mother
stopped nursing. These laws pertained to both boys and girls.^31 An additional
measure, designed to help protect the life of the infant, was birth control. Ac-
cording to Jewish law, a nursing mother was permitted to use a mokh, a cervi-
cal sponge, throughout the twenty-four months of nursing, so as to prevent the
conception of a new child who would endanger the existing infant’s milk
supply.^32
A central figure in these discussions is the wet nurse. Since she was hired to
take the mother’s place, she was also bound by the same obligations. At least
in theory, she was responsible for the child for the full twenty-four months and
was not supposed to get married or become pregnant during this period.^33 Her
obligations are not outlined at length in the ancient sources, as she was not the
focus of the legal rulings; they are implicit, however, in many of the discus-
sions. The lack of discussion on wet nurses is also a consequence of the fact
that they were, in many cases, non-Jewish. Although we find no negative as-
sessment of the practice of employing non-Jewish women, some precautions
were applied. The Mishna states: “The daughter of an Israelite may not give
suck to the daughter of an idolatress, but an idolatress may suckle the child of
an Israelite woman in her [the Israelite woman’s] own domain.”^34 The rea-
soning for this ruling was that a non-Jewish woman must be supervised when
caring for a Jewish child, in order to protect his life. At the same time, a Jew-
rick simeone
(Rick Simeone)
#1